ZEM changes

[strongNpretty]

So ready to travel this weekend to a new zone!! Woo thanks staff!!!

[Dolalin]

In classic, from level 1-6 you got a newbie ZEM of 100 no matter your zone, according to the ShowEQ dev's posts I found anyways. So these ZEM rises will actually provide a more classic newbie levels experience (if all outdoors are ZEM 100 now which seems to be the case).

I won't bother crunching the other numbers even though I could, I'm cool with leaving it a bit of a mystery.

[rewinder47]

I don't understand. Does this apply to both Green and Blue? It lists zones that aren't in Green yet.

Also, do they not know what the ZEMs were for classic EQ? If not, then this sort of makes sense I guess. But if they do have access to that information, I don't understand why they would be making custom balance changes like this on a server that is supposed to replicate classic EQ.

I don't really have a problem with these changes, because they are good changes, it just seems odd to me where they are drawing the line of what is "classic" and what isn't. Like, if they are going to make changes to encourage the use of certain zones, how about getting rid of the XP penalties to encourage the use of hybrid classes? Especially when Verant themselves admitted it was a design mistake that shouldn't have happened?

[Fammaden]

Where are you all getting the idea that the baseline has changed? Or that the bonus changes a zone's baseline?

This is the explanation we had from Rogean in the patch notes thread:

Originally Posted by Rogean [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

There's nothing confusing or badly worded about my post at all. The confusion is being caused by people trying to compare this to player-determined values. I don't know where the values on the wiki come from, and we do not reference those.

Every zone has an EXP Modifier which factors into the EXP Formula. Let's say a zone previously had a 0.4 modifier. If we moved it up to 0.6, that is a 50% increase in the modifier. We do not publish the specific values, as it's part of the mystery and should be discovered by the players how each zone stacks up.

Everyone's trying to pass these percentages through whatever the wiki numbers have told us for years, but we have confirmation from Rogean that the wiki's way of describing it is irrelevant and causing confusion.

So let's say we have one zone with a shitty .4 modifier like the example. That zone got a 50% boost to make it a .6 modifier. Now we have another zone that had amazing ZEM of 1.5, but got a 25% nerf, that brings it down to 1.125....which is still WAY better ZEM than the zone that got the 50% boost.

We don't know either the baseline or the individual modifiers of the zones in actuality. So seeing that Perma got an 88% boost to its mod, does not mean that Perma is suddenly the hotness and Highkeep is total trash, if Perma's mod was miniscule compared to Highkeep's in the first place.

Its still worth exploring and experimenting based on the announced numbers, and it will be interesting to see what plays out. But most of the playerbase is just looking at those announced percentages and assuming that it means flat XP gain for the zone increased by that much like its double xp weekend, but its only an increase to the zone's mod.

[larper99]

Originally Posted by Fammaden [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Where are you all getting the idea that the baseline has changed? Or that the bonus changes a zone's baseline?

This is the explanation we had from Rogean in the patch notes thread:



Everyone's trying to pass these percentages through whatever the wiki numbers have told us for years, but we have confirmation from Rogean that the wiki's way of describing it is irrelevant and causing confusion.

So let's say we have one zone with a shitty .4 modifier like the example. That zone got a 50% boost to make it a .6 modifier. Now we have another zone that had amazing ZEM of 1.5, but got a 25% nerf, that brings it down to 1.125....which is still WAY better ZEM than the zone that got the 50% boost.

We don't know either the baseline or the individual modifiers of the zones in actuality. So seeing that Perma got an 88% boost to its mod, does not mean that Perma is suddenly the hotness and Highkeep is total trash, if Perma's mod was miniscule compared to Highkeep's in the first place.

Its still worth exploring and experimenting based on the announced numbers, and it will be interesting to see what plays out. But most of the playerbase is just looking at those announced percentages and assuming that it means flat XP gain for the zone increased by that much like its double xp weekend, but its only an increase to the zone's mod.

No one is saying a ZONE'S baseline has changed. We are saying THE baseline has changed.

Percentages are percentages. They work no matter what the units are, or what the order of magnitude is. Let's pretend that there are 3 zones. A, B, and C. During player experimentation, they discover that it takes 5 kills of Amobs to level from 1 to 2, 8 kills of Bmobs, and 10 kills of Cmobs.

Now, given that as the only data, no baseline can be calculated. But, you can chose and arbitrary baseline!

I chose C. So, I will declare C as having a ZEM of 100. B, will thus have a ZEM of 10/8*100 or 125, and A will have a ZEM of 200.

C as baseline:

• A = 200
• B = 125
• C = 100

Or, you could choose A. In this case A will have a ZEM of 100, B will have a ZEM of 62.5, and C will have a ZEM of 50.

A as baseline:

• A = 100
• B = 62.5
• C = 50

Now, the devs come along and say that they have determined what the baseline should be and have altered the ZEMs accordingly. A's ZEM is reduced by 20%, B is left unchanged, and C's ZEM is increased by 20%

ZEM changes as a percent change:

• A change by -20%
• B unchanged
• C change by +20%

Now under the my choice of C as the baseline, A's ZEM is now 200*.8 = 160. B's ZEM is still 125, and C's ZEM is now 100*1.2= 120.

C as baseline new ZEMS:

• A = 160
• B = 125
• C = 120

Under your choise of A as the baseline, A's ZEM is now 100*.8 = 80, B's ZEM is still 62.5, and C's ZEM is 50* 1.2 = 60.

A as baseline new ZEMs:

• A = 80
• B = 62.5
• C = 60

Now, assuming there are no other changes, let's look at the number of kills needed now.

With C as the baseline, we first compare Cznew to Czold. What used to take 10 Cmobs now takes 10 * Czold/Cznew = 10 * (100/120) = 8.333mobs. Doing the same for the others: Akills = 5*Azold/Aznew = 5 * (200/160) = 6.25, Bkills = 8*Bzold/Bznew = 8 (unchanged).

Kills needed, C as baseline, new ZEMs:

• A = 6.25
• B = 8
• C = 8.33

Doing the same using A as baseline, Akills = 5*100/80 = 6.25, Bkills = 8(unchanged), and Ckills = 10*50/60 = 8.33.

Kills needed, A as baseline, new ZEMs:

• A = 6.25
• B = 8
• C = 8.33

Now, the whole "baseline" concept gets muddied when you don't give the baseline the value of 100, as the "old ZEMs" did in the outdoor zones, giving them the ZEM=75(100) nomenclature. But the result is the same. The number of kills changes in all zones, no matter what you chose as the baseline.

Now, we have one additional piece of information that the exercise above did not use: rogean explicitly said:

Starting with outdoor zones, we aimed for a baseline that all of these zones should be at. We then addressed dungeons and special zones, taking into consideration their risk vs reward and typical population numbers. This has resulted in the following changes.

He is TELLING us what zone to use as the base line. It turns out we should have used B. But it doesn't matter. All that does is make the ZEMs we list in the wiki have a relatable base: "HighKeep compared to Karana", etc.

So, we know to set B as the baseline.

B as baseline, old ZEMs

• A = 160
• B = 100
• C = 80

B as baseline, new ZEMs

• A = 160 * 0.8 = 128
• B = 100 * 1.0 = 100
• C = 80 * 1.2 = 96

Kills needed:

• A = 5*160/128 = 6.25
• B = 8* 100/100 = 8
• C = 10*80/96 = 8.33

Or, if you prefer using only the new ZEMs, you have to use the numkills from the baseline only:

Kills needed:

• A = 8*100/128 = 6.25
• B = 8* 100/100 = 8
• C = 8*100/96 = 8.33

Amazing how math works.

[Fammaden]

PLOT TWIST: what if some zones had negative xp modifiers and the boosts only served to bring them up to the baseline?

[Rogean]

You guys are analyzing this way too much. The reason for posting the percentage differences in the news post was not so that people could know exactly what the new ZEMs are, and people need to stop acting like they are entitled to know that. The reason we posted the percentage is so people know that some zones that were not worth exp'ing in before may now be worth it.

What some people have said is true, if a zone had a very low modifier before and it was increased by 50%, it's possible the new ZEM value is still lower than other zones. Whether that's the case or not, I'm not divulging. The point of all of this was, if you previously avoided a zone because it gave bad XP, well now it gives 50%, or 66%, or 88% more than it was before. So, go give it another shot.

[Naxy]

Originally Posted by Rogean [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You guys are analyzing this way too much. The reason for posting the percentage differences in the news post was not so that people could know exactly what the new ZEMs are, and people need to stop acting like they are entitled to know that. The reason we posted the percentage is so people know that some zones that were not worth exp'ing in before may now be worth it.

What some people have said is true, if a zone had a very low modifier before and it was increased by 50%, it's possible the new ZEM value is still lower than other zones. Whether that's the case or not, I'm not divulging. The point of all of this was, if you previously avoided a zone because it gave bad XP, well now it gives 50%, or 66%, or 88% more than it was before. So, go give it another shot.

Well said. Thanks.

[Christina.]

Originally Posted by Rogean [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You guys are analyzing this way too much. The reason for posting the percentage differences in the news post was not so that people could know exactly what the new ZEMs are, and people need to stop acting like they are entitled to know that. The reason we posted the percentage is so people know that some zones that were not worth exp'ing in before may now be worth it.

What some people have said is true, if a zone had a very low modifier before and it was increased by 50%, it's possible the new ZEM value is still lower than other zones. Whether that's the case or not, I'm not divulging. The point of all of this was, if you previously avoided a zone because it gave bad XP, well now it gives 50%, or 66%, or 88% more than it was before. So, go give it another shot.

It's funny right lol. In future notes dont give any numbers ...just say these zones have been giving a boost. People are crazy lol. They forget we play here free.

[zaneosak]

Originally Posted by Rogean [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You guys are analyzing this way too much. The reason for posting the percentage differences in the news post was not so that people could know exactly what the new ZEMs are, and people need to stop acting like they are entitled to know that. The reason we posted the percentage is so people know that some zones that were not worth exp'ing in before may now be worth it.

What some people have said is true, if a zone had a very low modifier before and it was increased by 50%, it's possible the new ZEM value is still lower than other zones. Whether that's the case or not, I'm not divulging. The point of all of this was, if you previously avoided a zone because it gave bad XP, well now it gives 50%, or 66%, or 88% more than it was before. So, go give it another shot.

But.... I like numbers and speculation!